The first law of robots: robots should not injure or cause harm to human beings or even allow human beings to experience harm. The second law: robots should respect orders given to them by all human beings with an exception of where the orders are conflicting with the law. The third law: all robots must provide protection to their own existence. While providing protection to themselves, they should ensure that they do not conflict with the second or first law.
The above laws have since attracted and quickly retained the attention of the Department of Defense Inspector General Office. Many authors of science fiction are clearly writing without taking into consideration the three laws. The writers have taken the laws for granted: the readers have been expected to follow suit. Science fiction writers have greatly influenced the cause of robotic engineering. Robotic experts argue that their long-standing robotic fascination in their writings when they were teenagers. This made them receive invitations to write in robotic manuals. The above laws are straightforward and simple. They have embraced the fundamental guiding principles of the best global ethical systems. They appear to make sure that human being continues to dominate over robots and preclude the usage of robots in pursuing evil. However, numerous challenges have risen from the great imagination witnessed in the DoD IG Office. (Wheeler, 2011).
By using robotics, Department of Defense Inspector General Office gain benefits such as speed, accuracy, and high reliability in operation. Computerized machines reduce long-term expense, which leads to significant increase in productivity. The personnel at the DoD IG Office have been relieved of exposure to dangerous working environment and mundane work. Capabilities of personnel have been extended further into hostile working atmosphere that involves high radiation, low temperature, low pressures, and high temperature areas. Alternatively, there are possibilities of deleterious consequences. Robots are likely to, directly or indirectly cause harm to personnel and their property. The damage could be incorporeal or economic. The injury could be an accident arising from instructions that human beings are given. Indirect injury takes happen on personnel when because robot application leads to job displacement and description. In addition, the usage of machines in replacing personnel has undermined the facet of self-respect for the affected personnel in the DoD IG Office (Hayles & Mendez, 2009).
The scope of application of information technology and their impacts on personnel has been dramatically increasing. Air conditioning and chemical processes with control systems have been used as good examples of technological applications that have direct and strong impact on the environment. In the DoD IG Office, manufacturing processes that have integrated computer technology, automated systems of warehousing and logistics have come just in time (Cope & Kalantzis). The personnel have also integrated systems of data processing with the firm's operations thus constraining the ability of personnel to query conclusions and decisions made by machines. Concisely, a huge percentage of trendy computer systems have become robotic in nature: it is time to manage their impacts. The second law of the aforementioned set of laws argues that personnel are to enslave robots. The second law, which provides that robots should not cause harm to personnel, has overridden this provision: accidentally or from instructions given by personnel. This has precluded personnel in the DoD IG Office to continue with their activities even after being aware of the potential injury. Besides, the laws protect robots form being used to commit evil such as suicide, self-mutilation, and murder.
2. Personnel Recruitment and Hiring Practices
Recruitment Policy: The Department of Defense Inspector General Office has a general policy of conducting recruitments from both outside and inside of their workforce to acquire qualified employees. Additionally, the DoD IG Office's policy emphasizes of making spectacular efforts in ensuring the process of recruiting promotes achievement of affirmative action objectives. The DoD IG Office's open recruitment policies are meant to further their goals of fostering a diverse and professional workforce. In accordance with the DoD IG Office's policies, all career opportunities are by following open recruitment procedures posted on the HR website by HR department. The DoD IG Office's HR team provides assistance and consultation when discussing strategies of recruiting such as professional associates and organizations (Wheeler, 2011).
Non-Discrimination: also referred to as affirmative action. It desires to promote equal employment opportunities for the aggrieved parties. This policy requires the Department of Defense Inspector General Office to embrace affirmative actions and prevent discrimination during employment. According to the policy on affirmative action, the office must promote equal employment opportunities for disabled veterans, the disabled, women, and minority groups. The DoD IG Office is responsible for helping the fulfillment of equal employment provision. This will ensure that the working environment is free from harassment and discrimination. The goal of the Department of Defense Inspector General Office is to retain and employ a diverse workforce comprising of qualified personnel (Earle, Schaffer, & Agusti, 2011).
Disabilities Act: the disability act offers protection to qualified people suffering from long-term and short-terms disability. These disabled individuals have the ability to perform functions similar to those holding the position they desire. Disabilities are mental or physical impairment that limits a person form performing major activities in life. According to this Act, the Department of Defense Inspector General Office must coordinate accommodation or people with disabilities unless they prove that disabled people would experience hardships because of the operations of the office (Hayles & Mendez, 2009).
Uniformity in Guidelines: the guidelines on equal employment opportunity in the selection procedures provide that the DoD IG Office's selection device that inappropriately excludes minority groups and women applicants is a violation of the law. In case this happens, the Department of Defense Inspector General Office must provide valid evidence showing that it was performance related (Wheeler, 2011).
3. Ethics and Diversity Training
After the leader of the Department of Defense Inspector General Office has approved the program, every member should be in possession of a copy and hold discussions of how the program will be implemented in their areas of work. This may be achieved through workshops or training programs. Managers may need to be trained about their duties and responsibilities and any other mechanisms, which may help them to have the confidence to oversee the implementation of the strategies. As the direction states, a copy of the strategy should be sent to the commissioner exactly after its establishment. Challenges may erupt while implementing a program to diversify the workplace, like the necessity to maintain energy and sustain interest, changing of the key employees, environmental changes and forces of resistance from managers who endure the pressure of their line of duty. Useful responses may include targeted discussions, program review, and maintaining the support from coming from senior management (Loden, 2010).
In order to monitor the progress, then the presence of performance indicators would be of much essence. This shows whether there are any adjustments, which needs to be done to keep fit on the verge to success. The measures that can be taken to monitor progress include, employee profile change, specifically those that are in the EEO groups. The profile of the employee may include status of the employee, retention of patterns and training take up, recruitment, level, and working arrangements that are flexible. Staff survey can also be used to monitor the progress. Other indicators may include absenteeism rate, diversified harassment complaints. They also include reports of progress, consultative committee's reports, or the senior management, employees profile change, staff feedback or interviews carried out with key management. Results must by internal procedures within the DoD IG Office. Those results may be used for annual report requirement (Wheeler, 2011).
The diversity and strategies of the Department of Defense Inspector General Office are established by assessment. This is helpful in evaluating how the defined outcomes occurred. The collected information may be put to comparison with the collected data for assessment. Perception of people and quantitative data may be used to evaluate the impact of the program. The DoD IG Office then considers the results of the evaluation. The outcomes will be very important as they may be used to develop new strategies or improve on the already existing strategies (Hayles & Mendez, 2009). The DoD IG Office focuses on the value on diversity and utilizes it effectively through continuous processes. An assessment should be made to determine the department's performance and legal obligations. The management must do this regularly. Establishing a program for workplace diversity does not necessarily fulfill the obligations of the department. A report should be assessed annually by the senior management to find out the impact and results of the program for workplace diversity. In a period of four years, they must have also reviewed the program. They also have the choice of reviewing the program at an early stage (Wheeler, 2011).
4. Recommendations for Recruiting and Training a Diversified Workforce
The Department of Defense Inspector General Office must coordinate workplace…